Of course, the winners bracket and higher gp should get better overall rewards than the rest but at least the competition will be more even.

Of course higher Win/loss rate brackets should have significantly better rewards than lower ones. Losing in a higher bracket should reward better rewards than winning a lower bracket. Why should players have easier access to the good rewards simply because they lose a lot?

Glad we're on the same page

However, I'm not sure, that players in higher GP brackets should necessarily have higher rewards as well. High GP doesn't prove better performance.

Of course, the winners bracket and higher gp should get better overall rewards than the rest but at least the competition will be more even.

Of course higher Win/loss rate brackets should have significantly better rewards than lower ones. Losing in a higher bracket should reward better rewards than winning a lower bracket. Why should players have easier access to the good rewards simply because they lose a lot?

Glad we're on the same page

However, I'm not sure, that players in higher GP brackets should necessarily have higher rewards as well. High GP doesn't prove better performance.

Your working towards the light here.

Words of Luke Skywalker "There is good in him I felt it."

Dude, check my previous comments from a week back in this thread. I always had this oppinion. However, I'm happy that you (and possibly others) begin to see it the same way. You're apparently not the fastest one to realise it, but I'm saving a place for you here in the light. We have plenty of space for you too.

Sandbagging at its finest. I don't hate the player. I hate the rules which encourage this gameplay.

Frankly I would rather go back to my incremental build strategy but if I want to have any chance at all in GA, I have no other choice than to rebalance away from fleet and build a top-heavy squad roster.

It don't believe it is because they built a weaker roster as it is they are severely overmatched that there is no possible way to progress vs several In this thread trying to protect thier "hand me win matches" for premium rewards.

Two players of almost identical total GP. One player is significantly overmatched. And you don't believe it's because one built a weaker roster (weaker for GA)? How else can he be overmatched if not because of this? Please explain.

As I am also fine losing vs someone who built better,not just someone in Zata count and meta toons owned and not owned.

Please explain this. In my oppinion. Building towards unlocking META toons early is part of building a strong roster. Acquiring more zetas (either by unlocking the challenge earlier, having a strong fleet to place high in fleet arena, getting Talzin/Wicket to 7* early and whatnot) is also part of building a strong roster. This last sentence of yours seem illogical to me. To me it seems like:"You're fine with loosing to players, who built a stronger roster, but not to players who built a stronger roster."

Issue 1: built a stronger roster because they have more Zatas, in my matches up to 2x more then I have..enough to put a Zata squad in every spot on def and offense...I have too choose to use mine on def or on off.....that's unbalanced. Because of this they have only the top half of thier roster being matched with my full roster. Zatas carry a lot weight as they should with enhanceing abilities. (I have explained this in depth several pages back)

Yes, but could you please explain why you're ok with being matched against players who built better rosters, but not if they have more zetas? You're contradicting yourself.

Issue 2: If your definition of stronger is just anything stronger.. and then as OP said above why match with GP under the current system and your definition it shouldn't matter. Let the slaughter begin.

In one GA I had to use all my zatas 28 of them(now I have a couple more) and fight off players 38/42/48. So is this just a stronger build or a mismatch.

Same GP and significantly more zetas than you? That seems to be a stronger build - at least it is on this aspect.
It's not an even match, but it may be a fair match. Players with stronger rosters should have higher chance of winning the better rewards. I see nothing wrong here.

That is an earthquake match, no surviving. And no this didn't happen just once....as a matter of just recently I used my new 32 zatas vs a guy with 54...so what did I gain.....I get it, I must still be just building weak as per your definition.

You may have use your 32 zetas well and used them to upgrade strong abilities, but still, you only have 32 zetas. Why didn't you farm 54 as well? Your opponents has done something better than you. He built his roster stronger than yours (when regarding zetas).

I had a match 1-2 times sense GA started and I lost but it was very close Zatas I had maybe 3-4 less. I didn't mind the loss as he just inched me out in banners like literally (8).

When I asked why shouldn't a lean roster be vs against another lean roster of same GP...more zatas...more meta toons owned....the answer I was given "why should I have too vs someone lean. I built lean so I shouldn't have too. (This again do some homework, you can find it several pages back you will find your answer there, no I'm not going to do it for you, do it yourself.)

Since we all battle for the same amount of rewards, it's only fair, that those, who built their roster strong, also benefit from it. It would be unfair, if players, who built weaker rosters, had the same chance at winning 1st place rewards as the players with strong rosters have (same GP).

Now too answer your question....why must they be matched vs players with way less...as I said it isn't balanced....with that build in this test your roster event is better suited testing it against others who share the same build types. You will never prove your roster or how good it is matched up with someone not similar too your build or as in other cases better then your own. Yes that would apply to everyone. Not just in the case of I'm lean compared to you so I shouldn't have to face anyone else but very broad roosters. If that is fair then everyone should have matches that are handed to them not just one class of lean. That far ahead is akin to kicking you in your face because you didn't do that same thing. To lose against someone who is better, but you have the same chance of claiming victory, near your same class carries gratitude further then someone you have absolutely no chance against. That is favoring one class over the other substantially...when we are all vieing for the same coveted rewards to continue to improve.

Here is an idea since the bottom half of the roster is useless against super lean, how about not allowing g12 and zatas to be allowed to compete so I can fight them with all my level 85 vs thier lvel 1 all day and I get the rewards they are getting now in exactly the reverse. And they can be penalized for not developing or broaden there bottom half. Then we can argue who built better.

That is essentially what is happening now just in the reverse, I built way better then you in this regards. And you won't have to worry about weak lean rosters earning any premium rewards because they wouldn't be.

That was personal attacks ..I was warned...all that comment states is I like your argument and it fits my senario's as well. Remove the word trolling an insert a friendly word like "shareing, too quote or in agreement". Didn't expect it to be an issue after being referred too as loser or weak. (In regards to my roster build..nothing personal I'm sure.)

I don't believe anybody has called you a loser or weak. I know, I havent. I hope, you don't accuse me if doing so. If you do, then please read my comments again, and stop that sillyness. Just... just stop.

Pandoras box? I'm gonna give you a pass on this for now. Let's stay focused on the issue. And continue to move it forward. As it would be in the best interests of the game. After all we are seeing this issue from two very different stand points.

Of course, the winners bracket and higher gp should get better overall rewards than the rest but at least the competition will be more even.

Of course higher Win/loss rate brackets should have significantly better rewards than lower ones. Losing in a higher bracket should reward better rewards than winning a lower bracket. Why should players have easier access to the good rewards simply because they lose a lot?

Glad we're on the same page

If you agree, that the rewards should be significantly better, for players in the high win/loss ratio bracket, then yes. However, I'm not sure, that players in higher GP brackets should necessarily have higher rewards as well. High GP doesn't prove better performance.

I think both should contribute. If the rewards are just as good for lower gp bracket as higher gp bracket, it encourages sandbagging and purposefully stifling progression.

Progression is what the game is all about (according to cg) so the game should encourage both gp progression AND reward winning.

Balancing rewards might take a bit of work on cg's part but yeah the winning 4m gp bracket should definitely get better rewards than the winners of the 2m gp bracket.

I have only 1 defeat so far (3.3m gp) and the guy I lost to sandbagged his roster to monstruous levels, by removing mods from everything he wasn't running. Insane investment for such low rewards, imo.

He had over 20 g12 characters more than I do - and I have 38 of them -, a ton of really good 20+ speed 6 dot mods and an insane NS team he kept on the back row. He told me his NS have not been defeated in GA.

I was way out of my league, but that's ok. The rewards don't give me an incentive to sandbag my roster at all and, if other people do it, it's their choice.

Now too answer your question....why must they be matched vs players with way less...as I said it isn't balanced....

It's not even, I agree. Hiwever, as long as everybody battles for the same rewards, it's fair.

You will never prove your roster or how good it is matched up with someone not similar too your build or as in other cases better then your own.

I disagree.

With the current system, players with strong rosters, have a better chance of ranking 1st in the GA. Ranking 1st indicates, that you have a strong roster. This is a test of your roster (and yes, strategy and RNG also plays its part).

If matching everyone against other players with similar rosters, ranking 1st tells you nothing about how strong your roster is. This would be a test of battle strategy - not of your roster or your skills in roster building.

Yes that would apply to everyone. Not just in the case of I'm lean compared to you so I shouldn't have to face anyone else but very broad roosters. If that is fair then everyone should have matches that are handed to them not just one class of lean. That far ahead is akin to kicking you in your face because you didn't do that same thing. To lose against someone who is better, but you have the same chance of claiming victory, near your same class carries gratitude further then someone you have absolutely no chance against. That is favoring one class over the other substantially...when we are all vieing for the same coveted rewards to continue to improve.

I disagree. Changing match-making as you suggest would be to favor weakly built rosters. The current system is more fair. Players don't get smaller chance of winning, simply because they built a strong roster.

Here is an idea since the bottom half of the roster is useless against super lean, how about not allowing g12 and zatas to be allowed to compete so I can fight them with all my level 85 vs thier lvel 1 all day and I get the rewards they are getting now in exactly the reverse. And they can be penalized for not developing or broaden there bottom half. Then we can argue who built better.

This is not a test your roster. This is a test of your weakest characters only. This suggestion is as good as only letting players use jawa, tusken and Ugnaught in GA.

The game mode is fine. The matchmaking blows chunks. But it's no more than I would expect from a first pass simply using the available metric, GP, as a blunt instrument.

The real question is where they go from here. Matching on squad GP rather than total GP for fleetless GAs will be a start.. if they ever get it implemented and deployed.

Ultimately though, they are going to have to come up with a more sophisticated matching algorithm, including a measure of player skill, if they actually want to create competitive matches rather than the current farcical mismatches.

The game mode is fine. The matchmaking blows chunks. But it's no more than I would expect from a first pass simply using the available metric, GP, as a blunt instrument.

Matchmaking is fine.
I don't believe that GP is the only metric.

Ultimately though, they are going to have to come up with a more sophisticated matching algorithm, including a measure of player skill, if they actually want to create competitive matches rather than the current farcical mismatches.

If they adjust the prices as well, so that players with harder match-ups will always win better rewards than players with easier match-ups, then it would be fair and an option as well.

Now too answer your question....why must they be matched vs players with way less...as I said it isn't balanced....

It's not even, I agree. Hiwever, as long as everybody battles for the same rewards, it's fair.

You will never prove your roster or how good it is matched up with someone not similar too your build or as in other cases better then your own.

I disagree.

With the current system, players with strong rosters, have a better chance of ranking 1st in the GA. Ranking 1st indicates, that you have a strong roster. This is a test of your roster (and yes, strategy and RNG also plays its part).

If matching everyone against other players with similar rosters, ranking 1st tells you nothing about how strong your roster is. This would be a test of battle strategy - not of your roster or your skills in roster building.

Yes that would apply to everyone. Not just in the case of I'm lean compared to you so I shouldn't have to face anyone else but very broad roosters. If that is fair then everyone should have matches that are handed to them not just one class of lean. That far ahead is akin to kicking you in your face because you didn't do that same thing. To lose against someone who is better, but you have the same chance of claiming victory, near your same class carries gratitude further then someone you have absolutely no chance against. That is favoring one class over the other substantially...when we are all vieing for the same coveted rewards to continue to improve.

I disagree. Changing match-making as you suggest would be to favor weakly built rosters. The current system is more fair. Players don't get smaller chance of winning, simply because they built a strong roster.

Here is an idea since the bottom half of the roster is useless against super lean, how about not allowing g12 and zatas to be allowed to compete so I can fight them with all my level 85 vs thier lvel 1 all day and I get the rewards they are getting now in exactly the reverse. And they can be penalized for not developing or broaden there bottom half. Then we can argue who built better.

This is not a test your roster. This is a test of your weakest characters only. This suggestion is as good as only letting players use jawa, tusken and Ugnaught in GA.

It is not fair because the matches are all but set In stone. And yes use those toons as they are counted towards you total GP anyway...and as I stated...it is currently being done just In the reverse. But I get it, sit down shut up and play my game.

It is already settled that it matches on GP. The Devs announced it with the introduction of GA. It's also evident if you look at the stats of your opponents.

It's not fair that they count the GP of unused toons or ships though and that's what needs to be adjusted. It could be done with a better matchmaking, which is what we are proposing, but it could also be balanced with restricted use of toons.

So here's a suggestion that could be fun (perhaps every other GA):

Still match on total GP (unfair), but ban the top X toons of each player. If you have less than X, you may not participate. If you have X+1, you get to play 1 toon, so you better activate all your toons. I would love to play through that and see who is skilled at managing their non-regular toons. Set X at 85?

Of course, this would not be fun for a lean roster. But they would get the next GA.

You may have use your 32 zetas well and used them to upgrade strong abilities, but still, you only have 32 zetas. Why didn't you farm 54 as well? Your opponents has done something better than you. He built his roster stronger than yours (when regarding zetas).

Simple someone playing for 1-1.5 years (newer player) because of TB was encouraged to inflate his roster and have a big GP being matched with someone who's been playing for 3 years

GP is the same but G12/Zetas/experience but the older player never cared about ships, new guy did to inflate GP maybe to get into a guild or something

I'm not trying to actually infer anything. Simply pointing out that that player has done NOTHING wrong he has 32 zetas because he is a year or two behind the person he is playing against with 54 zetas.... he has done nothing really 'better" than the player other than being here longer and being able to collect more zetas...

Brings up a valid point. If the Devs are allowing people playing for 1 year to be matched with people been playing for 3+ where again is that line drawn...

If they are going to be matched up the person playing longer should and could have an advantage which is fine but if it's the auto-doom matchup 50g12 vs 10 we are back to the simple.....who cares it's over why even click enter....

You may have use your 32 zetas well and used them to upgrade strong abilities, but still, you only have 32 zetas. Why didn't you farm 54 as well? Your opponents has done something better than you. He built his roster stronger than yours (when regarding zetas).

Simple someone playing for 1-1.5 years (newer player) because of TB was encouraged to inflate his roster and have a big GP being matched with someone who's been playing for 3 years

GP is the same but G12/Zetas/experience but the older player never cared about ships, new guy did to inflate GP maybe to get into a guild or something

I'm not trying to actually infer anything. Simply pointing out that that player has done NOTHING wrong he has 32 zetas because he is a year or two behind the person he is playing against with 54 zetas....

I didn't claim, that anybody did anything wrong. I'm simply stating the fact, that with regards to zetas the player with 54 built hist roster stronger. Here, check for yourself:

...he has done nothing really 'better" than the player other than being here longer and being able to collect more zetas...

With regards to zetas, he did something better. I'm not aware what he did, but here are a few possibilities:

Building ships to do the zeta challenge earlier.
Bought more zeta mats in the fleet store (and possibly ranking higher in fleet arena to earn more currency).
Built towards beating individual events early (Wicket, Talzin).
Joined a guild, that performs better inTW.

I don't see an issue in GA matchmaking. Ppl play very differently, can't all be winners in this one limited game mode. Ppl like to complain cuz they farmed every ship in existence and have 1 g12 toon at 4 mil gp. Boo hoo. everyone has known for years now where the end game is.
My problem is with the TW sandbagging. Why is that not fixed yet? It's been months! I could've walked there and done it myself by now and walked back home across the country!

I don't see an issue in GA matchmaking. Ppl play very differently, can't all be winners in this one limited game mode. Ppl like to complain cuz they farmed every ship in existence and have 1 g12 toon at 4 mil gp. Boo hoo. everyone has known for years now where the end game is.
My problem is with the TW sandbagging. Why is that not fixed yet? It's been months! I could've walked there and done it myself by now and walked back home across the country!

You cant complain about sandbagging in tw , if you are ok with it in GA, but yeah i guess in GA it benefits you and tw it doesnt. So that would be why

I don't see an issue in GA matchmaking. Ppl play very differently, can't all be winners in this one limited game mode. Ppl like to complain cuz they farmed every ship in existence and have 1 g12 toon at 4 mil gp. Boo hoo. everyone has known for years now where the end game is.
My problem is with the TW sandbagging. Why is that not fixed yet? It's been months! I could've walked there and done it myself by now and walked back home across the country!

You cant complain about sandbagging in tw , if you are ok with it in GA, but yeah i guess in GA it benefits you and tw it doesnt. So that would be why

Well in TW it's been an issue for a very long time, and involves people sitting out to fudge the matching system. There's no real sandbagging in GA, as you can't leave out parts of your roster to gain an advantage. The only real complaint there about it, ship gp, has already been addressed as being fixed soon.